Do you understand it?

[jiang]

Dear teachers,
The following is a translation of a work report. I'd like to know whether the translation is idiomatic enough. And whether you understand the sentences or not. To save your time I have numbered each sentence. Pleas send back the numbers of the sentences you don't understand.


1. Accelerating the transformation of government functions. 2. Great progress has been made in reforming government institutions and in transforming government functions, but many problems remain to be solved. 3. We need to further emancipate our minds, shake off the fetters of the traditional planned economy, and transform government functions into economic regulation, market supervision, social management and public service. 4. We need to further define the functions of government departments to prevent cases like shifting one's responsibility to others or having no one take responsibility. 5. We should conscientiously implement the basic principle of "running the country according to law" perform official duties lawfully and managing the government by high standards. 6. We should deepen reform, reduce the scope of administrative examination and approval, standardize and simplify necessary approval procedures, stress openness and transparency, and clearly define responsibilities. 7. For this purpose, the State Council has already issued instructions, and all local governments and departments should implement them conscientiously. 8. We must accelerate the utilization of information technology in government administration, and promote e-administration to improve our working efficiency and exercise more effective supervision.

Thank you in advance.

Jiang

 

[Tdol]

1. is not a complete sentence. It's fine as a heading, though. ;-)

 

[Tdol]

2. I'd change the phrase 'government functions', maybe to 'administration'.

 

[Tdol]

4.- you could use 'shirking responsibilty' if you want something idiomatic.

 

[Tdol]

5. We should conscientiously implement the basic principle of "running the country according to law" perform official duties lawfully and managing the government by high standards.

I'd put a comma before 'performing' and turn it into 'performing'
Do we manage the government? We could use 'running'.

 

[RonBee]

Re:

• . Accelerating the transformation of government functions.

To accelerate something is to make it go faster. To transform something is to change it. To accelerate the transformation of government functions is to speed up the change of government operations, or procedures. Presumably, the writer is talking about somebody trying to reform (change) certain government procedures to make them more efficient.

Re:

• Great progress has been made in reforming government institutions and in transforming government functions, but many problems remain to be solved.

They have gone a long way (made great progress) in the effort to reform (change, hopefully for the better) government institutions and transform (change) government functions, but there is still a ways to go before all the goals have been achieved.

 

[Tdol]

6. We should further reforms & (instead of stress) emphasising

 

[Tdol]

7.- I'm not too sure about 'instructions'. They could be directives, which is the EU term. ;-)

 

[RonBee]

Re:

• We need to further emancipate our minds, shake off the fetters of the traditional planned economy, and transform government functions into economic regulation, market supervision, social management and public service.

Government control of the economy (planned economy) simply does not create prosperity. In fact, the reverse is true. Nevertheless, we don't want to admit that outright. (Thus the gobbledegook.) Instead, we will pretend that "economic regulation" will somehow produce greater prosperity. We will claim credit for the efforts of private citizens. When something goes wrong will we blame other people.

Re:

• We need to further define the functions of government departments to prevent cases like shifting one's responsibility to others or having no one take responsibility.

We need to be able to hold somebody accountable when something goes wrong. The problem is that nobody wants to take the blame for anything, and instead they attempt to shift the blame to others. The way the system works now it is often difficult to pin the blame on anybody. Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything.

 

[RonBee]

Re:

• We should conscientiously implement the basic principle of "running the country according to law" perform official duties lawfully and managing the government by high standards.

We will have to cut down on instances of bribery. It has gotten out of hand. (People are well aware that the way to get what you want from a government official is to bribe that person.)

Re:

• We should deepen reform, reduce the scope of administrative examination and approval, standardize and simplify necessary approval procedures, stress openness and transparency, and clearly define responsibilities.

We haven't done a good job yet at replacing the system of bribing government officials with something else. Instead, the old system is hanging on tenaciously.

Or:

We should reduce the amount of government regulation and make it clear both what the procedures are and what people are supposed to be doing. (Of course, there has always been the way things are supposed to be done and the way things are actually done.)

 

[RonBee]

Re:

• For this purpose, the State Council has already issued instructions, and all local governments and departments should implement them conscientiously.

We have already issued instructions concerning the matter under discussion, and this time we want local governments and departments to really follow the instructions instead of just pretending to.

:wink:

Re:

• We must accelerate the utilization of information technology in government administration, and promote e-administration to improve our working efficiency and exercise more effective supervision.

We hope that by using computer technology more we can watch people better and catch them when they do something wrong.

 

[Joe]

differences

RonRee,I don't know how you feel about a working report "with Chinese characteristics". However,for me,it's very interesting to compare your correction with the original version. Jiang,Don't take this wrong,I mean,it's not a matter of right or wrong,idiomatic or unidiomatic,it's even not a matter of language,it's the differences in the way we think and talk. The western way is comfortable and easy to read,and the Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. And I personally like the western way. :lol:

 

[Tdol]

The Western way can also be formal- a lotof modern business language is murderously dull,IMHO.. ;-)

 

[Joe]

The Western way can also be formal- a lotof modern business language is murderously dull,IMHO.. ;-)

Thanks to your information,tdol. I didn't know there are "murderously dull business language" in the west.
Exactly speaking,"the Chinese way" has something to do with the political reality in China. Whenever I listen to this type of report,I feel like being "mentally violated". Sorry,a bit off-topic...

 

[RonBee]

Re: differences

RonRee,I don't know how you feel about a working report "with Chinese characteristics". However,for me,it's very interesting to compare your correction with the original version. Jiang,Don't take this wrong,I mean,it's not a matter of right or wrong,idiomatic or unidiomatic,it's even not a matter of language,it's the differences in the way we think and talk. The western way is comfortable and easy to read,and the Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. And I personally like the western way. :lol:

What I do is try to figure out what people really mean and put it into idiomatic English. It seems to me that bureaucratese (the way bureaucrats talk) is quite similar in English and in Chinese. I think you will see instances of bureaucratic "spin" in English just as often as in Chinese.

I did not, of course, intend to give offense to anyone. I was just giving my interpretation of things.

 

[RonBee]

Re:

• If possible,please correct any mistakes I make.I'd appreciate it very much.

Um, you might want to get in the habit of spacing after punctuation: commas and periods, for example.

 

[jiang]

Re: differences

For several times I was told Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. Why is that? Is it because of Chinese culture or because English is a foreign language and when traanslating from Chinese into English the tone becomes serious and formal?

Jiang

RonRee,I don't know how you feel about a working report "with Chinese characteristics". However,for me,it's very interesting to compare your correction with the original version. Jiang,Don't take this wrong,I mean,it's not a matter of right or wrong,idiomatic or unidiomatic,it's even not a matter of language,it's the differences in the way we think and talk. The western way is comfortable and easy to read,and the Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. And I personally like the western way. :lol:

What I do is try to figure out what people really mean and put it into idiomatic English. It seems to me that bureaucratese (the way bureaucrats talk) is quite similar in English and in Chinese. I think you will see instances of bureaucratic "spin" in English just as often as in Chinese.

I did not, of course, intend to give offense to anyone. I was just giving my interpretation of things.

 

[RonBee]

Re: differences

For several times I was told Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. Why is that? Is it because of Chinese culture or because English is a foreign language and when traanslating from Chinese into English the tone becomes serious and formal?

Jiang

Well, since I don't know Chinese it is hard for me to say. It could be a cultural thing, but it could be something else. Perhaps JWSChang will see this and comment. (He is from Singapore and speaks English and Chinese.)

(Say: "I have been told several times...." The word "for" is used to express duration ("I waited for an hour") and not number.)

 

[jiang]

Re: differences


Thank you for your correction. I'll wait for JWS Chang's comment.

Jiang

For several times I was told Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. Why is that? Is it because of Chinese culture or because English is a foreign language and when traanslating from Chinese into English the tone becomes serious and formal?

Jiang

Well, since I don't know Chinese it is hard for me to say. It could be a cultural thing, but it could be something else. Perhaps JWSChang will see this and comment. (He is from Singapore and speaks English and Chinese.)

(Say: "I have been told several times...." The word "for" is used to express duration ("I waited for an hour") and not number.)

 

[Joe]

Re: differences

For several times I was told Chinese way is kind of serious and formal. Why is that? Is it because of Chinese culture or because English is a foreign language and when traanslating from Chinese into English the tone becomes serious and formal?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. When I said "It's the differences in the way we think and talk", I was not really referring to Chinese culture. I figure there's a political factor here. In Taiwan, I don't think you would ever hear anything like this. Of course, this is my own opinion. No offence to anyone here.